FORT MYERS BEACH
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 2002
Town Hall - Council Chambers
2523 Estero Boulevard
FORT MYERS BEACH, FLORIDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting of the LPA was opened by Chairman Roxie Smith on Tuesday, February 12, 2002, at 12:00 p.m..
Members present at the meeting: Anita Cereceda, Nancy Mulholland, Jane Plummer, Betty Simpson, Jessica Titus, Harold Huber, Jodi Hester, Hank Zuba and Chairman Roxie Smith.
Excused absence from meeting: None.
Staff present at meeting: Town Manager Marsha Segal-George, Deputy Town Manager John Gucciardo, Dan Folke and Bill Spikowski
II. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Invocation was made by Chairman Roxie Smith. All assembled and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
None.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 8, 2002; JANUARY 15, 2002
MOTION: Made by Betty Simpson and seconded by Anita Cereceda to approve the minutes of January 8, 2002 with corrections. Motion passes unanimously.
Corrections to changes to minutes of 1/8/02:
1. Betty Simpson - page 3 - Title to be corrected - strike Overly and replace with overlay - strike or and replace with of.
2. Betty Simpson - Change spelling of Kusek throughout document to read Cusick.
3. Betty Simpson - Member Items - Jane Plummer strike fair well and replace with farewell.
4. Betty Simpson - Adjournment time 2:15 p.m..
MOTION: Made by Betty Simpson and seconded by Anita Cereceda to approve the minutes of January 15, 2002 with corrections. Motion passes unanimously.
Corrections to changes to minutes of 1/15/02:
1. Betty Simpson - Strike seconded by for the first two motions.
2. Betty Simpson - 1st Page - Remove or 3 in a row.
3. Betty Simpson - Correct spelling of speaker names to read D’ Vincent, Slot, Eigerman and Motz.
4. Betty Simpson - Page 5 to read dependent.
5. Betty Simpson - Page 8 - Comment by Betty Simpson to include area following residential.
6. Betty Simpson - Page 8 strike Betty Simpson asked Jessica Titus if she had a 24 hour phone line? and replace with Betty Simpson asked Jessica Titus if she had a 24 hour line for call coming in at her business.
7. Jodi Hester - Page 6 - correct spelling to read Lee Luenser.
8. Betty Simpson - Change spelling of name to read throughout document Theresa Kozur- getz.
V. ADM2001-00013 ROBERT & BRENDA BURANDT. A request for a variance from the building code requirement for a fire sprinkler in a three story, single family home. The subject property is located at 457 Estero Blvd., Ft. Myers Beach, FL.
Town Manager Marsha Segal-George began by stating that this case is not a typical variance. This is an administrative appeal of a rule. A rule that was being applied in this case and the applicant is arguing that the rule is not being applied correctly. She indicated that all LPA members received a resolution on the Burandt case. She asked them to review the findings and conclusions. The standards that the LPA will need to consider is the position from both the applicant and the County staff. This will determine if the LPA wishes to grant relief.
Harold Huber questioned if this requirement is in the fire code? Town Manager Segal-George replied that it is in the building code, but not in the fire code.
Town Manager Segal-George commented that these types of issues go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. She indicated that they prefer to bring them through the Town’s process - LPA and Council. A lot of these issues do not exist. The LPA has the authority under the ordinance to handle this situation.
Robert Burandt came forward and expressed that page 1 is the addition that was put on to their existing home. He has highlighted the problem the County finds with this addition. He does not consider this a three story home. The reason is due to it being forbidden from having a bathroom in this area. He considers this a parking area. He indicated that it will cost him approximately $6500.00 to put the sprinklers in. He will have to tear up from the inside out and will be a big mess. He indicated that he was looking for a definition of the word “Story”. In the building code a story is defined as that portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and upper surface of a floor or roof next above. He expressed that this did not help him. He went searching for the definition of a “Floor”. He found that the definition of floor area means the usable area of each story of a building with surrounding exterior walls. He expressed that the building code discusses the whole state of Florida. Fort Myers Beach is unique. He cannot put anything habitable within 12 feet. He is asking for a complete variance or relief from having to put any sprinklers in the home. He indicated that he was told by putting in sprinklers he would save a lot of money on insurance. He called his insurance agent and he indicated that this is not true. They use this excuse to push these through on the building code. He has Nationwide Insurance and they give a -0- deduction for sprinklers. Any other insurance company will give between 5% and 10% of the fire portion of the premium, which amounts to approximately $100.00 per year.
Harold Huber questioned Mr. Burandt about his discussion with the Fire Marshall? Mr. Burandt replied that he spoke with the Fire Marshall here and someone in Fort Myers. He indicated that this is strictly a variance from the building code. If the Fire Marshall states this must be done it must go to another appeals process.
Jane Plummer asked if buildings with garage space on the first level with living space on the next two levels require both levels to be sprinkled? Mr. Burandt replied that in the building code there is a section that discusses this matter. If he would have had a cement slab on the bottom, which he could not do because of the existing home, the fire sprinklers would not have been required. Since it is sitting on a wood frame the County interprets that they must have sprinklers.
Jane Plummer asked if Mr. Burandt has plans to enclose the ground level area with siding or anything? Mr. Burandt replied that they are discussing this. He also explained that he cannot put anything down there except for his cars.
Hank Zuba asked Mr. Burandt if he used an architect and did they advise him of this? Mr. Burandt replied that he did use an architect. They advised him, after the fact, whoever does the plan review will determine how it gets approved. The architect felt it is ridiculous to put in sprinklers.
Mr. Burandt indicated that the new addition is one big room with no partitions.
Mr. Stewart came forward to address a few issues. He indicated that a parking level is treated as a story. It is not a habitable level, but is a story. By definition this is a three story building and by Table 500 it must contain sprinklers. The reason that they are not in total objection to granting this variation is due to the fact that part of this home was existing. There is an exception to the parking under a single family residence. If you build this parking level out of a certain type of construction (concrete) the number of stories would start to be numbered from above the parking area. If it is not that type of construction the parking area will be treated as a story. The request before the Board is to rule on a variation to the code, because it is the opinion of the Board that it would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the code or the public interest. This could also modify or reverse the opinion as set forth. The recommendation is for a partial approval to sprinkle only the new part of the construction.
Anita Cereceda questioned Mr. Stewart and asked if there was a concrete slab for the driveway he would not have to sprinkle? Mr. Steward replied not the driveway, but the first floor of the house.
Harold Huber asked if this house has been built? Mr. Stewart replied that it is under construction. The requirement for issuing a permit is that it contains sprinklers. He does have a permit, but is required to sprinkle under this permit.
Hank Zuba asked if this requirement would be in place under the proposed code? Mr. Stewart replied that it would.
Hank Zuba asked if there was any concern on his part as building inspector regarding precedence? Mr. Stewart replied that every situation is different.
Hank Zuba asked if in place of sprinkling could he modify? Mr. Stewart replied no. This is not an option.
Hank Zuba asked why this is not reviewed by the Fire Commission? Mr. Stewart replied that the one and two family dwellings are not in the statute of the Fire District.
Nancy Mulholland asked if it would be possible to pour a slab under this house? Mr. Stewart replied that he did not believe so at this time. He indicated that you have a problem with the existing portion of the building, which has a wood floor.
Jodi Hester feels that the Fire Marshall was probably involved in developing the building code regulations. Mr. Stewart replied that this was not correct. The building code people and fire code people are two different entities. The building code has been consolidated nationally among the national code bodies and talks broke off between this group and the National Fire Protection Association. He expressed that they were trying to combine all four to a single code. The building folks and fire folks could not see eye to eye and agreed to not be together.
Chairman Roxie Smith asked if they have others on Fort Myers Beach that are sprinkled? Mr. Stewart replied that he felt they have a bunch of them. He personally feels that it is an owners requirement for a single family residence, especially for one that is two stories over parking. This personal feeling does not enter into them being able to make an administrative interpretation on staff’s part. They have looked at all avenues short of asking for a variance of this Board.
Anita Cereceda asked if this poses any threat to the neighbor if he does or does not sprinkle? Mr. Stewart replied that it may have some bearing, but he is unsure of the distance between homes.
Hank Zuba expressed that it is staff’s recommendation to give a variation with regards to sprinkling the existing portion of the building and only apply with regards to the new construction? Mr. Stewart replied that this correct.
Mr. Burandt came forward and addressed the building code. It is his understanding that the building code is prepared by builders, architects and engineers. It is lobbied heavily by the insurance industry. This requirement, in his opinion, is in there because the insurance wanted it in there. It is not in there because the fire captains or chiefs wanted in there. He feels that they are creating more work. This is not a safety issue, but an economic issue. He indicated that this Board has been created to hear people and give them a change to apply for relief. He has talked to his neighbors and no one objects.
Chairman Roxie Smith asked how close his closest neighbor is? Mr. Burandt replied 12 ½ to 13 feet. She is fine with this and is in support. His house will be up to code and he should be worried about hers, which he feels is several years older than his.
Anita Cereceda asked if this Board can find he does not have to sprinkle his home? How do they do that? Town Manager Segal-George replied that based on the testimony presented they would determine that this regulation should not be applied in this case. She discussed the precedence issue and indicated that this is their second case in 7 years. A lot of cases have not come forward.
Jane Plummer feels that these types of issues will come forward more often in future. Her concern is the enclosing of the garage and this becoming a fire hazard. She feels that there is some risk here.
Town Manager Segal-George asked Bobby if there is a significant difference between whether the garage is enclosed or left open? Mr. Stewart replied that on the plans some of this is already enclosed. Mr. Burandt replied that the cars will be enclosed with the solar block and will not be completely enclosed.
Chairman Roxie Smith expressed that he is awfully close to his neighbor. She has had a fire down there. She knows what a fire does in an older home. She is not certain that there would not be a little element of danger to the neighbor. Her fire was a total loss. If she had to do this over she would have it sprinkled. Whether it is enclosed underneath or not she does not feel makes a difference.
Betty Simpson questioned the house on his right while facing his home. She expressed that it looks as if they will be doing construction. This house looks close to him and will it also be two story? Mr. Burandt replied that they have living space down below and were grandfathered in. They are remodeling the upstairs. His house was next door to this home, but was picked up and moved back. He is now a substantial distance away.
Chairman Roxie Smith asked if there was anyone from the public who wishes to speak? None were heard.
MOTION: Made by Hank Zuba and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve staff’s recommendation, which provides for sprinkling in the new addition and relief to the existing portion. Motion passes 6 to 3. Harold Huber, Jessica Titus and Anita Cereceda dissenting.
Discussion: Jessica Titus is not convinced or comfortable, if there is an enclosed downstairs, that the fire issue has been satisfied with the neighbors.
Mr. Stewart discussed the safety issue to the adjoining properties. The building zone presumes that you can build right up to the property line. This code does not take into account for this scenario that these zoning regulations are in place. It is assuming that the property owner is not there and can build up to the property line.
Harold Huber does not feel that he can support a motion to wave a safety issue in the building code.
Anita Cereceda will not support the motion. She would grant Mr. Burandt what he is asking.
Nancy Mulholland is inclined to support the motion, because of the concern of the neighbor being so close. There is the possibility of fire. With sprinklers on the third floor it could prevent danger to a neighbor.
Jodi Hester support the motion. She feels that this is a little bit different situation to take into consideration. She does like the top floor being sprinkled.
Betty Simpson does also like the top floor being sprinkled. The idea that he is putting in new wiring and piping for the old section will be an improvement and helps regarding the safety. She was concerned with the enclosing of downstairs.
Town Manager Segal-George announced that this will go to the Council on March 11, 2002.
VI. VAR2001-00053 THE FOWLER COMPANY IN REF. TO SNUG HARBOR RESTAURANT. A request for variances in the Fort Myers Beach Core Area Overlay C-1 Zoning District to allow the following for development of the property with a standard restaurant with outdoor seating: (1.) from the required street setback of 25 feet (First Street), per Fort Myers Beach Land Development Code Section 34-2192 (a) to allow a 0 foot street setback. (2) from the required maximum required 128 on-site parking spaces for a standard restaurant with an outdoor seating area per Fort Myers Beach Land Development Code Section 34-2020 (2) 1.2 to allow 0 parking spaces. The subject property is located at 1131 1st Street (northeast corner of 1st Street and Old San Carlos Boulevard), Ft. Myers Beach, in S24-T46S-R23E, Lee County, FL.
Town Manager Segal-George expressed that this case is a continuance. A request from the last hearing was made for Bill Spikowski to come and address some of the issues. This has been discussed with the applicant and they have no objections.
Bill Spikowski came forward and wanted to begin by discussing the Old San Carlos/Crescent Street Master Plan. When the Town formed the Times Square redevelopment was just beginning to take place. When preparing the Comprehensive Plan, which took effect January of 1999, the Town hired him and two other planning and design firms to prepare a detailed Master Plan for the Times Square expansion to include Crescent Street, Old San Carlos, parts of Estero Blvd., First, Second and Third Streets. He showed the plan to the LPA and expressed that this is very detailed. Unlike the Comprehensive Plan it is not the law. It is adopted as the Town’s plan for what the Town wants to do in this area. Does an applicant have to pay attention to this? The plan does have relevance, but is not legally binding. Many different things have taken place. The new code is being re-written. It will allow for someone who wants to develop in accordance to the plan and easier situation. If the landowner does not want to do what is in the plan they will come before the LPA through the CPA to see something different. When a request comes in they do look to this plan to see if the applicant is doing what the Town said they wanted. If the applicant is doing the same as the Town has requested they will try to find a way to make it work. If it is different they will argue that it is a bad idea.
He went on to discuss the Land Development Code. The main way of implementing this plan through the code is the Downtown Zoning District. The Downtown Zoning District will replace the Core Area Overlay. In the new code, if adopted the way it is drafted, the Downtown District will be mandatory and will contain all the regulations to implement this plan. Because of the fact that they are building so much shared parking in this area they are proposing to reduce the required parking spaces for development in this area. The rule now is a 1/3 reduction and the new rule, if adopted, is a ½ reduction. This is not in effect just yet. The other main method of implementation of this plan in the Land Development Code is the commercial design standards. The design regulations are very specific.
Bill commented that this particular project has a timing problem with relation to the code. The obvious problem that this project has with the plan is that they wanted a big park there. He indicated that Mr. Cusick does not want to sell his property. Unless the Town is prepared to condemn and pay the price they will have to allow some reasonable use of the land. He indicated that the last thing they want to see is a parking lot. The best thing, if it is going to be privately used, would be a restaurant. He discussed that the service area has been placed against the bridge, which is the least desirable of the four frontages. There are problems with the First Street frontage, because this is where the kitchen is and you want to have the tables out facing the water. With the kitchen facing First Street he is unsure how he will meet the glass requirement. One of the conditions on the variance is that the building will have to comply with these standards.
He went on to discuss parking. This was the issue that came up last time and was discussed at great length. Mr. Cusick and his partner did purchase the Laundromat property at the corner of Third and Old San Carlos. They have been using this as a temporary lot. This lot is within a comfortable walking distance of the Snug Harbor Restaurant. He feels that it would be ideally suited for the overflow parking. Mr. Cusick is concerned that he does not have enough parking. People drive to his restaurant presently because they do not have a good way to get there on foot. Once they build wider sidewalks and the restaurant is more visible his walk-in traffic should improve. Bill does not feel the parking is a problem. It will be a little short, but parking will be a little short everywhere on Fort Myers Beach. A lot of new parking will be added. He indicated that they have tried everything to make this new reality work with the original plan.
Chairman Roxie Smith had some ex parte communications with the applicant. Anita Cereceda has also spoken with several people including Mr. Cusick.
Mr. Cusick came forward and expressed that they are agreement with the conditions recommended by staff. He is very much aware that the Town wanted the land as a park. He indicated that they were always going to use the land in a very attractive and useful way for everyone. It is their intention to give a homogeneous look. From the water to the building the required setback is 25 feet, which they have. If you throw 10 feet of dock in you now have 35 feet to work with. The intention is to take the 35 feet and make it a continuation of the park that the Town will build. He expressed that they will use the same streetlights, benches and trash receptacles, etc.. He wanted them to know that they are doing as much as they can with their dollars to make this a great area. He indicated that Snug Harbor is old and in need of additional repairs. They wanted to tear it down and build to the existing codes. They are in a dilemma. This building is going to be uninsurable as soon as next year. If the big one hits here and the structure is more than 50% destroyed it cannot be rebuilt. He must have a contingent plan. He expressed that they have had great cooperation and they are very pleased with the process. What they are asking for is in keeping with the intent of the entire overlay district. Because Chapter 34 has not been voted on and enacted on a situation exists. He expressed that they could go down and apply for a building permit to build a building that would be totally out of keeping with what the overlay district intends. This would not be in keeping with what everybody wants including themselves. They want to comply with the intent of the overlay district, but without a variance they cannot. The relief that they are looking for is totally within the intent of the overlay district. Last time staff and Pam put five conditions on the request to grant the variance. The second had to do with the Town’s need to have their two sections connect for pedestrians. They have come up with a legally binding agreement with the Town to provide pedestrian access from the Town’s parcels over to his property. He suggested today that condition 2 change to something more simple. This should include that an agreement will be in place or they do not get the variance. His proposed language states “prior to issuance of a local development order for the restaurant the applicant and the Town must have a document that assures binding, permanent public pedestrian access along the bay front connecting Old San Carlos with State Road 865". He indicated that they will comply with this and they have no problem with this being a condition.
He went on to discuss condition 3 with regards to parking . He indicated that they neglected to include the 31 spaces they have in another lot, which is the Laundromat lot. He indicated that they will have 170 parking spaces. If you add up the requirement for the new restaurant, potential of a cruise boat at the dock and the charter vessels currently at the dock they come up 7 spaces short. He expressed that they are going to valet park. They are now in compliance with the existing zoning. The future has been thought of while designing this plan.
Mr. Cusick brought up the Cruise boat, Key West boat or a Casino boat at Snug Harbor. He indicated that there is no boat this season. There probably will not be one next season also. This is when the existing lease arrangement is over. Anybody who comes in later will have to apply for an occupational license and must comply with all rules, regulations and requirements in place at this time.
Nancy Mulholland mentioned the agreement between himself and the Town. She did not hear the word “recorded” mentioned? Mr. Cusick replied if the Town would like it recorded it will be recorded. He is not concerned with this. He is concerned and so is the Town that this document be permanent and binding.
Jane Plummer asked Mr. Cusick what changed his mind about the connection between the Town’s parcels? Mr. Cusick replied that he and his partner were able to go through the issues and come to an agreement. It was never the issue of people walking across the property that they had a problem with. He felt that they did not need an agreement to have people walk across the property. They are in the process of agreeing to this stipulation for protection to the Town in the future when they no longer are the owners of the property.
Hank Zuba applauded the design. It looks very creative and interesting. He feels that the restaurant adds to the Peoplescape. Whatever the city would require regarding the recording of this agreement would be acceptable to him? Mr. Cusick replied that this was correct.
Hank Zuba asked about the valet parking. How will they know this will continue? Mr. Cusick replied that there will be times during the off-season he will wish that this was not in effect.
Rob (last name?) came forward and expressed that the valet parking will not be an issue if the variance is granted.
Mr. Cusick replied that they will be only 7 spaces short with the existing zoning. If his parking is not adequate the logical thing to do will be valet. He does not want to create an atmosphere of no parking. When it is needed they will use it and when it is not they will not.
Hank Zuba asked for the elements of the pedestrian walkway that are still being discussed? Mr. Cusick replied there are many. Some deal with liability and exact location. He was asked to not cloud the issue by bringing this into the hearing.
Town Manager Segal-George explained that normally things are complete before they come to the LPA. The LPA can determine to hold off on a decision if a matter has not been completely resolved, if a member feels they cannot make a decision without it.
Nancy Mulholland questioned that the parking lot will be gone before he has the new building to use. How will the parking situation be handled when this parking lot cannot be used anymore? Mr. Cusick replied that when you take away the existing parking lot that the building will go on they still have 170 spaces.
Anita Cereceda indicated and Town Manger Segal-George agreed that the LPA could re-write condition 2. Anita Cereceda asked if Mr. Cusick had a problem with the valet parking being a condition to the approval? Mr. Cusick replied that they have no control over where people park as long as it is legal. He would hope that they would have so many patrons that they filled up the public metered portions of the roadway. He expressed that they have a very large public metered lot under the bridge. The customers use it all the time. He expressed that they will have plenty of parking. He will not agree to having a valet person out front every night, because there may not be a need for it. Clearly, when there is a need for it they will have it.
Town Manager Segal-George indicated that the Pam does reference a new condition regarding valet parking.
** Chairman Roxie Smith called a five minute recess **
Pam Houck, Zoning Director for Lee County, came forward. She reviewed her memo from February 6, 2002 that was provided to the LPA. The main issue at the last hearing was regarding how many spaces can be allocated to the restaurant. After the hearing and many discussions with the applicant she feels that they can allocate all 96 spaces. The 96 spaces have been narrowed down to a deficit of 7 spaces. Chapter 34 allows anyone to valet park. The burden is on the property owner to provide it and maintain it. If they do not provide it, it hurts their business. Pam gave some examples of those currently complying. Pam commented on the question raised of using the on street parking to compensate for the deficiency? She explained that they do not have a deficiency anymore. She has recommended a revision to condition 3. This revision is that the applicant will maintain the required 96 parking spaces for the restaurant in the parking lots that are located at Snug Harbor at 645 Old San Carlos and the Laundromat property at 343 Old San Carlos. Valet parking may be used to accommodate the number of required parking spaces. He will have to provide handicap parking in compliance with the code. She discussed condition 2 with regards to the access across the property. She strongly encourages them to use the words approve and recorded in the condition. She used the location of the pedestrian plaza and restaurant courtyard as part of this condition, because this is what she had before her to review. The applicant has added an additional 10 feet that is on the submerged land. With this addition to the recommendation she does not have a problem with it.
Jane Plummer needed clarification on the 96 parking spaces for the restaurant alone. Pam Houck replied that the other parking is not before them in this variance request. The only variance being requested is for the restaurant to provide no on site parking. She is recommending that it be provided off site.
Harold Huber asked if any width for the ingress and egress needs to be stated in the agreement? Pam Houck replied that it will have to be put in the agreement. That is for the two parties to decide on. In her mind she feels that it should be about 10 feet.
Hank Zuba asked if Pam is not a party of the discussions on the agreement? Pam Houck replied that she has purposely stayed out of this. She does not feel that this is a part of her job as a planner reviewing this case.
Hank Zuba asked if they have reduced parking in the past for these types of proposals? Pam Houck replied yes. There is a discussion in the memo from Dan Folke. She indicated that there have been a couple of other variances with deviations in their planned developments.
Hank Zuba mentioned the valet parking and questioned how this is enforced? Pam Houck replied that it is self enforcement. If you do not have enough parking for your customers you will lose your clientele. If they overburden the surrounding area by not providing enough parking this would be a code enforcement issue.
Anita Cereceda questioned the access agreement and asked Pam if the LPA needs to create this agreement? Town Manager Segal-George commented that this is not a fair question to ask Pam. She went on to explain that the applicant with the Mayor has been working on the language. It was not ready to come before the LPA. This document will be ready for the Council and will specify where on the property this pubic access point will be, who will have maintenance responsibilities and some of the issues that have been under discussion. She expressed that her preference is that the LPA always gets the complete case before it goes to Council. This particular case has special time constraints. The LPA will need to make its recommendation without specificity because all information is not available. If the LPA would like to make a statement in the provision that the size be a minimum of 10 feet it can be done. She does not feel that they should make any recommendations regarding maintenance or location.
Mr. Cusick commented that nothing crazy is going on behind the scenes. It is a matter of timing. He has been working with Mayor Hughes and Dan Folke. If for some reason they do not come to terms he will not get the variance. If the agreement is not to the satisfaction of the Town’s desire it will not go forward. Everyone is taking a risk. He knows the spirit of the agreement and is confident that this LPA will be satisfied. They are very close with the negotiations and he is confident that this will go forward.
Harold Huber asked Mr. Cusick if he had any objections to adding the minimum width to the easement of 10 feet for condition 2? Mr. Cusick replied that it is not an easement, but it is a pedestrian access. He indicated that the 10 feet has already been agreed to.
Harold Huber commented that he has no problem with the parking.
Hank Zuba asked for clarification between an easement and pedestrian access? Mr. Cusick replied that he is not a lawyer and cannot answer this question. The agreement that is being contemplated is not using this word.
Town Manager Segal-George replied that she has not seen the document. All the attributes that the applicant is giving to the document makes it legally an easement. She feels that as long as all of this language is in the condition it does not matter what it is called and will have the same legal effect as an easement.
MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Jane Plummer to approve the application before the LPA with stipulated conditions: Condition 2 stating that prior to the issuance of a local development order for the restaurant the applicant must have approved and recorded a document that assures binding permanent public pedestrian access satisfactory to the Town Council connecting Old San Carlos with State Road 865 right-of-way under the bridge. Modifying condition 3 so that it will read that the applicant will maintain the required 96 parking spaces for the restaurant in the parking lots located at 645 Old San Carlos and the Laundromat property at 343 Old San Carlos . The valet parking may be used to accommodate the number of required spaces. Motion withdrawn by Anita Cereceda. Second withdrawn by Jane Plummer.
Discussion: Jodi Hester likes the motion, but would like to see the minimum width of 10 feet. She cannot support it the way it has been proposed. The parking does not bother her, but the easement does. She prefers 10 feet on land than on dock.
Harold Huber questioned if Anita left in 4 and 5. Anita replied that they are in. Only condition 2 and 3 are modified.
Jane Plummer agrees with the motion. All of the details will be spelled out in the agreement. She is unsure why this must be specified.
Anita Cereceda is concerned about Jodi’s concern.
Jodi Hester replied that she would like 10 feet on land.
Town Manager Segal-George replied that there is a problem with this. If it is on the dock then it will have to be open and specific language will be included. Provisions would have to be stated in case something happened to the docks. These types of items have been raised as issues to be resolved.
Jodi Hester understands this and she respects what Ed is doing. She would like to see the project go. She is most worried if he sells.
Town Manager Segal-George expressed if the LPA would like to stipulate the 10 feet as a minimum size this would be acceptable. The applicant has not been agreeable to doing the walkway over land and would like to do it over water. If this condition is put in it would be unacceptable to the applicant. She feels that their concerns will be addressed through Council.
Chairman Roxie Smith does not have a problem. If the Council is not pleased it will not go anywhere. She has no problem with the 10 feet. She does not feel that they should go further than this.
Hank Zuba commented that as a recommending body he feels that the L:PA should be able to voice their opinion to Council. He feels that Jodi’s on land comment is appropriate to include.
Jessica Titus asked when the language would be worked out? Town Manager Segal-George replied that this is scheduled to go to Council on March 11. She would not have time with advertising to bring this back before the LPA. This is not normally how she likes to handle this.
Jodi Hester would like to send to Council the direction on how they are feeling about things. She would like Council to know that they prefer 10 feet on land, because someone may buy a big casino boat or the dock may get blown away. Council does not have to go with what is sent, but they need to send some kind of direction to go by.
Betty Simpson agrees that she would like to see a minimum 10 foot width. The diagram indicates a slight jog, which indicates a small safety issue, going from the Town’s proposed pedestrian plaza going onto the dock.
Anita Cereceda would like to see this project happen. She would like the motion to go unanimously to Council. At this point she withdrew her motion.
MOTION: Made by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Nancy Mulholland to approve the variance request with condition 1 as stated in the resolution. Conditions 4 and 5 as stated in the resolution. Condition 3 stating that the applicant will maintain the required 96 parking spaces for the restaurant in the parking lots located at Snug Harbor 645 Old San Carlos and the Laundromat property at 343 Old San Carlos. Valet parking may be used to satisfy this requirement. Condition 2 will say prior to the issuance of a local development order for the restaurant the applicant must have approved and recorded a document that assures binding and permanent public pedestrian access of a minimum width of 10 feet bayside and a landward public pedestrian access that is satisfactory to the Town Council connecting Old San Carlos with State Road 865.
Motion amended by Anita Cereceda and seconded by Nancy Mulholland to change condition 2 to read prior to the issuance of a local development order for the restaurant the applicant must have approved and recorded a document that assures binding permanent public pedestrian access with a minimum of 10 feet connecting Old San Carlos with State Road 865. Motion passes 7 to 2. Jodi Hester and Hank Zuba are dissenting.
Discussion: Hank Zuba has concerns with the language in the motion for the placement of the public access.
Anita Cereceda re-explained her motion. She is now understanding the position of the LPA, but is unsure how to phrase it.
Chairman Roxie Smith feels that if she is walking along this area her preference would be to walk along the dock. Whether it is on land or dock does not make a difference. She feels that a dock walk is premium.
Anita Cereceda amended her motion. She expressed that she has left out the landward/bayside discussion. Until the agreement is finalized she does not feel that they need to include this information. Council will be aware from the minutes of the bayside/landward discussion.
Anita Cereceda has concerns that the reason Jodi Hester and Hank Zuba have voted against this motion is because of the landward/bayside language and not because they do not support the project.
Chairman Roxie Smith will comment on this matter in Member Items and Reports.
VII. DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE
It was decided that this agenda item will be discussed at the next meeting on February 19, 2002.
VIII. LPA MEMBER ITEMS AND REPORTS
Chairman Roxie Smith - She expressed that the last hearing before the Council on Seafarer’s she was asked to please appear before Council. She felt that she was originally asked to be in a lobbying position. She refused and stated that she did not think this was an appropriate place for the LPA Chairman to go and lobby LPA decisions. Especially, decisions that were not unanimous. She was then asked to appear and state the history of the LPA. She feels that this is appropriate. She asked if anyone on the LPA has objections to this?
Jane Plummer agrees 100% with this. As a member of the public you can appear before the Town Council and state your thoughts. She does not feel that Jane Plummer can speak on behalf of the LPA.
Anita Cereceda urged the members of the LPA to stand up to their votes. She does not want them to assume that the Council will be able to decipher why something was or was not done. She feels that more than the recap needs to be expressed.
Chairman Roxie Smith agrees that this is a good point and is well taken. Everyone needs to agree to this.
Nancy Mulholland felt that when a controversial case was happening someone from the LPA would go to Council to present this. Chairman Roxie Smith replied that this has not been done.
Jodi Hester does not feel that this should be done. She feels that this persons feelings may not be conveyed properly. She feels that the minutes will reflect the discussion. For someone to go and represent her that disagreed with her may not give her side of why she disagreed. She feels that she would need to also be present and be notified of this. She commented that the minutes reflect the meetings much better than two years ago. She can read the minutes and follow the meeting format exactly. The Council should be responsible for reading the minutes to keep updated on the results of the LPA discussions.
Jodi Hester commented that she felt Chairman Roxie Smith did a very professional job in presenting to Council exactly what happened with the LPA. She does not feel that she overstepped her bounds in anyway. This was totally unbiased and very professional.
Harold Huber - Discussed a letter from Council member Bill Thomas that was attacking one of the members of the LPA. He feels that this person was just doing her job. He wondered if they as a group should take any action against this letter? Chairman Roxie Smith has a problem with the person who drafted the letter not being at the meeting. The reported information was hearsay.
Harold Huber commented that he felt that Jane Plummer did a good job of getting the information they had requested. He does not feel that she should receive this type of criticism. Chairman Roxie Smith replied that she agrees. She feels that this was an emotionally charged issue and Jane did a good job.
Anita Cereceda commented that she was on Mr. Thomas’ side on this issue, but she was equally criticized. It is difficult to discuss anything controversial without people starting things such as this. She feels that it would be appropriate for the LPA to issue a letter to Council member Thomas with copies to other the Council members stating that their duty is to discuss the issues that come before them.
Hank Zuba feels if they have some feelings personally they should transmit them. It seems beneath them to do so as a group.
Betty Simpson agrees with Hank. The LPA purpose is to gather information and discuss it. Everyone is guilty of getting excited on certain issues. She would hate to see them add anymore to it. It would be better to be dropped.
Chairman Roxie Smith commented if they react to it and respond to it, it receives credence that it does not have now.
Jane Plummer thanked Harold for bringing this up and everyone’s feelings. This does make her feel a whole lot better. She did apologize for getting excited and talking as long.
Anita Cereceda - Asked who the Task Force person will be? Chairman Roxie Smith replied that Jane has decided against it. Jodi Hester has agreed to assume the position.
Anita Cereceda asked if they have a stated mission of this Task Force? Is the mission to create a registry and rules of behavior only? Town Manager Segal-George replied that this is correct. This is not a debate of whether or not short term rentals should or should not occur. They are trying to see if an interm step can be taken to deal with some of the behavior issues from the rental properties. If this problem can be cured can they then avoid the bigger fight over short term rentals. She is unsure if they can, but this is the job of the Task Force to work toward. The only way to keep the LPA out of a potential challenge is to not have more than one LPA member at a meeting that will eventually come before the LPA.
IX. PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
X. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m..
Respectfully Submitted,
Shannon Miller
Transcribing Secretary